Tafsir of An-Naml 27:67

This is an explanation of their ignorance regarding the Hereafter and their blindness toward it. The relative pronoun (those who disbelieved) is placed in the position of their pronoun to blame them for what is contained within the scope of its relative clause and to intimate the cause of their false judgment contained in their utterance.

"When" (idha) is an adverb for a suppressed verb indicated by "brought out" (mukhrajun); meaning: "Shall we be brought out when we have become dust?" There is no justification for it being an adverb for "brought out," because the interrogative hamza, the particle inna, and the lam—according to what has been stated—each prevents what follows them from operating on what precedes them; so how much more so when they are all combined?

Some have not considered the lam to be a preventer, based on what is established in grammar regarding the permissibility of the object of the predicate of inna (which is joined with the lam) preceding it, such as in the example: Inna Zaidan ta‘amaka la-akil (Verily Zaid, your food he is eating). In that case, two preventers would suffice. However, I believe that those who say, "Adverbial expressions admit of more latitude than others," do not suggest that this ruling is consistently applied in a position like this.

By "bringing out," they mean being brought out from the graves. It has been permitted that the "bringing out" refers to the transition from the state of annihilation to life, though the first is the more apparent meaning. The restriction of "bringing out" to the time when they have become dust is not intended to limit their denial solely to that state—for they deny resurrection after death absolutely, even if the body remains in its state—but rather, it is to strengthen the denial by directing it toward the "bringing out" while in a condition that they allege to be incompatible with it.

His saying (Exalted is He): "...and our forefathers" is a conjunction to the pronoun of kana (we have become); he dispensed with separating it with an emphatic pronoun by separating it with the predicate. The repetition of the hamza in a-inna is for the sake of hyperbole and intensification of the denial. Embellishing the sentence with inna and the lam is to emphasize the denial, not to deny the emphasis, as the noble arrangement might suggest; for the advancement of the hamza is due to its originality in the initial position. The pronoun in a-inna is for them and their forefathers, because "becoming dust" has encompassed both them and their forefathers.

Ibn Kathir and Abu ‘Amr read a-idha and a-inna by combining the two interrogatives and turning the second into a ya’, with Abu ‘Amr separating them with an alif. Nafi‘ read idha with a single, kasra-vowelled hamza—the interrogative hamza being implied alongside the implied verb, because the meaning is not one of a statement—and a-inna with the interrogative hamza, turning the second into a ya’ with a madda (prolongation) between them. Others read a-idha with an extended interrogation and annana with two nuns without an interrogation.